IRVINE – The City Council tonight will decide whether to give voters the final word on the direction of the Great Park, as well as tighter restrictions on City Hall’s release of residents’ personal information.

Voters’ decisions on the two high-profile issues could put to rest debates that have raged between the council’s two political factions. But some fear the ballot measures could further fuel what is already expected to be a heated election season in which all five incumbents plan to run for mayor or council.

GREAT PARK DECISIONS

The Great Park measure seeks voter approval for a variety of high-profile and at times controversial decisions made by city leaders over the past three years in guiding the transition from the former El Toro Marine base to the ambitious 1,347-acre central park.

Most notably, voters would be asked to weigh in on the council’s 2006 decision to keep the Great Park directly under Irvine control. A divided council agreed to keep the Great Park Corp. – led by the community’s five elected leaders and four at-large appointments – as essentially a department of the city.

A grand jury report urged the city to create an independent Great Park leadership board, arguing that keeping the project under city control turned what was conceived as a county park into an Irvine project. The council majority rejected the grand jury findings, which Agran earlier this month described as a thinly veiled attempt to turn the project over to the Board of Supervisors.

Voters would also weigh in on several projects that are already under way, including the construction of a 27.5-acre preview park, the first portion of which was opened to the public earlier this month.

PRIVACY CONCERNS

The second proposed measure would tighten the city’s control over personal information, with the recent release of thousands of e-mail addresses leading some to worry that the information could fall into the wrong hands.

While the e-mail data provided the impetus behind the debate, the proposed measure refers only to “individuals’ public information.” The measure would allow the city to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to disclose information that was given to the city for a “limited specific purpose” and which the city has promised to keep confidential.

Several council members have pointed to residents signing up for community classes or children’s programs as e-mail addresses that should be protected. A report prepared by the city attorney earlier this month determined that e-mail addresses may be withheld if the public interest in disclosing them is outweighed by the public interest in keeping them private.

But, some worry that the new restrictions would not withstand a legal challenge.

The California Public Records Act already determines exactly what information kept by the city is publicly available, said Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware. Francke also worried that the proposed measure didn’t specify how the decision whether or not to disclose personal information would be made.

OTHER COUNCIL ITEMS

The council will debate whether to impose prevailing wage standards on Great Park projects, a change that some argue would attract top contractors, but could add millions in construction costs.

City leaders previously considered the Great Park exempt from prevailing wage standards, which govern the hourly rates and benefits paid to workers on certain public works projects that receive state or federal funds.

The council majority previously worried that without prevailing wage, lower-paying firms are able to underbid more qualified contractors. Others argue that prevailing wage eliminates competition by pricing out some construction companies, and forces taxpayers to pay more for the same work.

Regardless of the council’s decision, prevailing wage requirements will be forced on the Great Park by 2010, when city redevelopment funds are slated to go toward construction. The use of federal or state grants, which Great Park leaders are actively pursuing, could also force the use of prevailing wage.

In the meantime, city staff estimates that an immediate move to prevailing wage would add between $4 million and $8 million in extra costs.

The City Council meets at 4 p.m. at City Hall, 1 Civic Center Plaza. The full agenda is available online at www.cityofirvine.org.

Sean Emery is a crime and public safety reporter for the Register who covers state and federal courts and criminal justice issues. He has worked for the Register since 2006, previously covering breaking news, the city of Irvine, the Orange County Great Park, and the city of San Juan Capistrano.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.